Stay At Home Monday: Reforming Law Schools and Drug Testing the Poor

It’s cold in the Midwest. The temperature is -15 outside as I write this. I’m at home, comfortably indoors, as my institution had the good sense to close today. I’m grateful as all commuter train service between Indiana and Chicago was cancelled making it impossible to get to the office in any event. I spent the weekend shoveling excessive amounts of snow several times and can use the day off. I’m being trailed by a calico kitten I rescued from my back yard on Christmas Eve. If that’s the worst I have to deal with today I’ll take it.

The unexpected break gave me a chance to catch up on the news out there. I’d like to recommend a couple of pieces. One is from Brian Leiter in the Huffington Post. He argues against mandatory experiential learning as it is being considered by the American Bar Association. Personally, I’m a big fan of modifying the law school curriculum to include more practice oriented classes. I can agree with Professor Leiter that the rules should allow schools to offer such classes and see where the market takes them. Some people who want to be scholars would likely have no need for such learning. Others, however, would benefit from changes in the curriculum.

The second article I would recommend is the commentary provided by Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic concerning the New Year’s Eve decision by a federal judge that struck down a drug test requirement before getting welfare benefits. The state argued its “legitimate” concerns in preventing tax dollars used by recipients to buy drugs. The Court, for the second time in this litigation struck down the requirement because the evidence didn’t support the state’s concern. The Fourth Amendment factored in the decision as well on suspicionless drug testing. Cohen quotes parts of the opinion and links to the full text.

I’m personally happy to see this result. I can think of a parade of horribles in terms of policy decisions that could flow if the decision were otherwise. I’ll give you one example. It’s known that people drink and drive. Or they use other stimulants that might impair them behind the wheel. Would anyone care to take an alcohol and/or drug test to get or renew a driver’s license? The state does expend considerable amounts of tax money to provide the licensing scheme as well as manpower and facilities for public safety. It’s not that much of a leap to go from drug testing welfare recipients to drug testing license applicants. There’s an actual track record based on DUI arrests and accidents. I’ll be waiting for that kind of measure to be introduced in a state one of these days.

Disclaimer

Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.